About Conservative Home

Conservative Home's debate blogs

Conservative Home's reference blogs

How is David Cameron doing?

Conservative blogs


Contributors test

« Anne Main MP: Council tax rewards for homes that improve their carbon footprints | Main | Dr Jonathan Munday: A Federal Parliament »


Phil Taylor

I have voted against this proposal although I do think that it has some merits.

The Mayor is over-mighty. GLA members do seem to be expensive in comparison to what they are allowed do. On the other hand I think that it is too much to expect a councillor to really get under the skin of the Police or the LDA or TfL as essentially a volunteer paid a small allowance. You want some heavyweight oversight if you are spending £10 billion per annum.

There should be a stronger relationship between boroughs and GLA members. A one-to-one correspondence and a first-past-the-post vote would do it for me. The direct accountability should keep them active. Two-thirds of them should be able to veto anything. Nothing should happen without half of them agreeing. Yes, the Mayor would have to spend more time negotiating with elected representatives. He would probably have less time for agit prop and foreign travel. So much the better.

The current Mayor with his £3 million a year personal propaganda sheet, £78 million comms budget for TfL, spending all CC revenue of £900 million on capital and running costs, using the police for electioneering this May, spending £100Ks on foreign travel has demonstrated how a badly the current system of London government is broken.

David Boothroyd

The idea of removing the direct election of the London Assembly and replacing it with indirectly elected members from Boroughs is a very bad one. When this was last tried, the Metropolitan Board of Works became intensely unpopular because it was not accountable to Londoners - and because the lack of accountability made it corrupt. Moreover, requiring Mayoral strategies to have Assembly approval makes the Mayor a nothing.

What should be done is that the full-time London Assembly should be scrapped and replaced with a part-time, evening meeting, Parliament for London with 150 members elected from single member small constituencies at a different time to the Mayor. This body would really hold the Mayor to account.


It's impossible for an abolitionist to vote either way on this, therefore much as I always try to vote on these 100Policies ideas I must defer this time.


The GLA Act must be repealed and local government across the United Kingdom reduced in it's activity. We are a Parliamentary nation that does not require or seek either legislative devolution or large elected regional governmental structures. They are alien imports.

Peter Coe

Connell, do you mean *regional* government should be reduced in its activity - or do you really advocate local councils having even fewer powers? Just appreciate the clarification.

Incidentally, I agree with Geoff, above - I don't see why London needs an assembly at all; a lot of the Conservatives who argue that it's important to hold the Mayor to account seem to be motivated by the fact that London currently has a Mayor they didn't vote for - I wonder if they'd feel so strongly about preserving an Assembly (in whatever form) if a Conservative had won?


"Regional government" should be repealed and local councils a minimal scope of activity. Local councils are now devices of central government, directing billion pound budgets and the attending patronage. Their purpose is to enforce the policy programme of government via legislation and a financial hosepipe. Turn off the tap.


This exercise is meant to be a search for 100 election winning policies. This is a "policy" on restructuring local government. It therefore doesn't qualify.

I say "policy" in inverted commas because a real policy is a relatively straightforward but powerful idea which you back up with lots of little ideas. This is just lots of little and very dull ideas.

Stephen Ogden

I live in Manchester, in the North of England. This policy idea means nothing to me.

Richard Baxter

Jake and Stephen Ogden both make good points. The "100 policies" are supposed to be key policies that could help win the Tories the next general election. This "policy" is not up to scratch - it is far too vaguely defined, and it is completely meaningless to voters outside London.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
Blog powered by Typepad


  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below:

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker